Skip to main content

Out of court settlement during ongoing Insolvency Process?

In Vivek Bansal Vs Burda Druck India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., in a recent judgment the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that a company could exit an ongoing insolvency process even as an interim resolution professional had been appointed and a moratorium imposed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by the adjudicating authority, that is the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) triggering the debate over the best option for banks and other creditors to recover their dues-a resolution monitored by the court, or an out-of-court settlement with lenders.

In the judgment, a bench headed by acting chairperson Justice Bansi Lal Bhat noted that since the operational creditor (who had taken the company to NCLT) and the corporate debtor had “amicably settled the dispute”, it allowed the parties to exit the CIRP.

The tribunal decided that as the parties have reached the settlement and the ‘Committee of Creditors’ was not constituted, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, the impugned order dated 27th May, 2020 passed in ‘C.P. No. IB 2223 (ND)/2019’ was set aside and allowed exit from the ‘corporate insolvency resolution process’ which is permissible in terms of the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.’ – (2019) 4 SCC 17). The matter is accordingly disposed of in terms of the ‘Settlement Agreement’ between the parties.

The latest move by the NCLAT paves the way for companies to settle claims and end ongoing insolvency cases. The ‘corporate debtors’ in such cases can thus arrive at a settlement with the lenders, even after initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under the IBC.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more